U.S. District Judge James Boasberg recently claimed to have found probable cause to hold the Trump administration in contempt for violating his deportation orders. This stems from an incident on March 15, 2025, when deportation flights to El Salvador took off despite Boasberg’s emergency order to halt them. He labeled the administration’s actions as “willful disregard” for his authority, arguing that the government rushed to deport individuals before his ruling could fully take effect. However, the administration contends the flights departed before the order was finalized, casting doubt on Boasberg’s interpretation. Critics say he’s stretching the facts to assert control over executive actions, raising questions about the legitimacy of his probable cause finding.
Boasberg didn’t stop at the contempt ruling. He’s threatened to appoint a special prosecutor if the Trump administration’s Justice Department refuses to prosecute the case. This bold move challenges the executive branch’s prosecutorial discretion—a fundamental presidential power. By suggesting he might bypass the Justice Department, Boasberg positions himself as both judge and enforcer, a role that critics argue oversteps judicial bounds. Legal experts warn this could set a dangerous precedent, allowing judges to strong-arm the executive into compliance, further escalating tensions between the branches of government.
This saga screams judicial overreach. Boasberg has no business dictating how the president handles deportation—a clear executive function. The judiciary interprets laws, not micromanages the White House. By meddling in constitutional duties, he’s eroding the separation of powers. It’s time for Boasberg to sit down and stop overstepping; he has no authority to tell a president how to do his job.
